Skip to comments.
Martha Stewart's First Amendment Defense
The McLaughlin Group ^
| Mar. 7, 2004
| Lawrence O'Donnell
Posted on 03/07/2004 2:16:32 PM PST by tvn
Lawrence O'Donnell on this morning's McLaughlin Group stated that Martha Stewart's appeal should be based on vioation of her First Amendment rights.
O'Donnell argued that it should be the Constitutional right of every American to lie to anyone - including government employees- except in a proceeding where testimony is taken under oath.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: firstamendment; marthastewart; mclaughlingroup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
To: Capt. Tom
Instead of one semester of government class in high school, two semesters of how to deal with your government, and two semesters in college. :-)
41
posted on
03/07/2004 8:40:05 PM PST
by
an amused spectator
(Gotta call 9/11? Who do you want to answer - Officer Bush, or Officer Kerry?)
To: anniegetyourgun
Not when it bites a hog like Stewart.
42
posted on
03/07/2004 8:43:09 PM PST
by
185JHP
( "And the pure in heart shall see god.")
To: Capt. Tom
Some FR lawyers may want to comment I believe that Poohbah was in legal in the military, and I think he might actually be a lawyer. His experience with the law allows him to make snarky little comments like "Wow. There are some real knuckleheads out there."
Of course, he didn't mention that to anyone, did he? ;-)
43
posted on
03/07/2004 8:49:31 PM PST
by
an amused spectator
(Gotta call 9/11? Who do you want to answer - Officer Bush, or Officer Kerry?)
To: Carolinamom
The Jurors said that the most damning evidence was by her personal secretary or assistant?, who said Martha changed the log of the message from her broker. The secretary broke down in tears in court because she didn't want to have to hurt Martha. Martha had previously told the feds that she didn't recall the message. The jurors thought that statement made little sense because she was so detail oriented. The feds probably got to the assistant, big time!
There was also another person close to Martha that provided damning evidence.
Most all of the jurors took exception with the celebrity visits to the court room, as if she was trying to sway their opinion. Only one pointed out that he thought they were just friends showing their support.
From their point of view it was pretty convincing that Martha lied and obstructed justice. They convinced me of her guilt! That is all they were asked to do, unfortunately for Martha.
I guess the next step is to determine what punishment this merits....a big decision for the judge.
I would be very interested to hear what kind of punishment the jurors think she deserves.
44
posted on
03/07/2004 11:21:16 PM PST
by
TheLion
To: an amused spectator
Awfully bold move for a lawyer, Poohbah. What about the rest of us lesser mortals? Hmmmmmmmm?I'm not a lawyer.
45
posted on
03/08/2004 3:58:16 AM PST
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: an amused spectator
I believe that Poohbah was in legal in the military, and I think he might actually be a lawyer.As I've pointed out, your beliefs and the facts are not congruent. I was in the military; I was not in legal.
His experience with the law allows him to make snarky little comments like "Wow. There are some real knuckleheads out there."
If you're dumb enough to believe that you're ever "off the record" during a sworn deposition, you're a knucklehead.
46
posted on
03/08/2004 4:08:34 AM PST
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Poohbah
I was in the military; I was not in legal. Do you have any experience in the legal system?
47
posted on
03/08/2004 4:10:30 AM PST
by
an amused spectator
(Gotta call 9/11? Who do you want to answer - Andy Bush, or Barney Kerry?)
To: an amused spectator
Do you have any experience in the legal system?Witness in two courts-martial (one for prosecution, one for defense), prosecution witness in a shoplifting case, and defense witness in a civil suit (got deposed by plaintiff and defense--plaintiff's attorney was a real Clymer, BTW). Also laughed in the face of an SEC investigator on a fishing expedition and slammed door.
48
posted on
03/08/2004 4:27:32 AM PST
by
Poohbah
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Poohbah
As I've pointed out, your beliefs and the facts are not congruent. I was in the military; I was not in legal. I stand corrected.
If you're dumb enough to believe that you're ever "off the record" during a sworn deposition, you're a knucklehead.
**shrug** It's easy to overawe some of the people with the aura of "authority". The "authorities" do it all the time.
49
posted on
03/08/2004 4:35:44 AM PST
by
an amused spectator
(Gotta call 9/11? Who do you want to answer - Andy Bush, or Barney Kerry?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson